Armed conflict has reached levels not seen since the Cold War, with a new war erupting in the Middle East and humanitarian needs soaring. Despite the scale of these crises, women’s roles and experiences are often excluded from security planning, data collection, and crisis response. This oversight risks not only the accuracy of conflict analysis but also the effectiveness of peacebuilding and stabilization efforts.

Underrepresentation in Data and Leadership

Only 50 percent of global data indicators — such as education, health, and economic outcomes — are sex-disaggregated, according to recent studies. In 32 percent of cases, no data has been collected in the past decade. This gap is exacerbated by the lack of women in key decision-making roles. A 2024 United Nations report found that women hold just 13 percent of defense minister positions worldwide.

Women also make up only 35 percent of academics in security studies globally, with even lower representation in top-tier security journals. This underrepresentation feeds into a cycle where women’s perspectives are excluded from both research and policy discussions, further entrenching the data gap.

Funding shortfalls have compounded the problem. Aid cuts have hit civil society and research organizations that track gender-based experiences of conflict, particularly those led by women. In 2022-2023, just 0.4 percent of bilateral aid from donor countries went to feminist organizations led by women. This figure has likely decreased further due to recent budget constraints.

Erasing Women from Public Discourse

Public discourse also reflects this marginalization. Less than 2 percent of news stories address gender-based violence or challenge gender stereotypes, the lowest level in 30 years of monitoring. Women comprise only 26 percent of news sources quoted in media coverage, and on topics like economics and politics, men dominate women’s voices by ratios as high as 31 to 1.

These disparities are not just a reflection of societal biases but also a result of systemic exclusion from leadership and scholarship. The lack of women in positions of influence reduces the visibility of their concerns and experiences, which are critical to understanding conflict dynamics and predicting future instability.

Women journalists, researchers, and community leaders are also facing unprecedented attacks. In 2025, 75 percent of women journalists surveyed reported experiencing online violence, which further silences their voices and deepens the blind spots in conflict analysis and forecasting.

Sexual Violence as a Security Indicator

Violence against women, particularly conflict-related sexual violence, is a key dimension in understanding and predicting changes in the security landscape. Sexual and gender-based violence by armed actors is an early warning indicator of conflict escalation. Increases in such violence during inactive conflict years can predict a return to active fighting, as it suggests rebel groups are recruiting and mobilizing combatants.

Fluctuations in patterns of sexual and gender-based violence can also illuminate the behavior and strategy of armed groups. Spikes in such violence have been associated with groups seeking to expand territorial control, and high rates can signal the presence of foreign fighters, reliance on child soldiers, and greater strength of rebel groups compared to pro-government forces.

Sexual violence during conflict is also a significant driver of refugee migration and can undermine local trust, impeding peacekeeping efforts and long-term economic investment. Ensuring recognition of women and girls’ wartime experiences is not a matter of benevolence but a strategic imperative for accurate conflict assessment and peacebuilding.

Women’s status and safety are powerful predictors of a country’s peacefulness and security. Misogyny and violence against women routinely precede broader security threats, including political and extremist violence. Research across more than 155 countries finds that women’s subordination is linked to a greater willingness among men and boys to commit acts of political terror and violence.

In the United States, nearly all mass shooters have a record of intimate partner violence, stalking, sexual assault, or online harassment and misogyny. In countries like Indonesia, Bangladesh, the Philippines, and Libya, sexist beliefs and tolerance for violence against women are the most powerful predictors of support for violent extremism, surpassing other factors like religiosity and education.

Online and physical attacks targeting women are also early signs of democratic backsliding, a key risk factor for conflict. Suppression of women’s political involvement has been identified as a mechanism for autocratic consolidation and populist mobilization. Recognizing these symptoms — including attacks on women leaders and rollbacks of women’s rights — can provide early warning of democratic erosion.

By adopting a gender-blind approach, conflict analysis often misses opportunities or weaknesses in peace negotiations and agreements related to women’s participation. Research demonstrates that women’s inclusion in peace processes promotes more successful negotiations and strengthens the durability of resulting agreements. For instance, collaboration between women’s groups and women delegates has been shown to result in agreements with more political reform provisions and higher implementation rates.

Women’s greater participation in post-conflict society is also linked to a lower likelihood that civil war will resume. This suggests that agreements creating pathways for women’s engagement are critical to long-term stability. However, these insights are rarely integrated into standard threat assessment frameworks, despite their recognized value.